Method and apparatus for scoring an object to be evaluated based on an evaluation model

Abstract

The present specification relates to the field of computer software, and particularly relates to an evaluation model-based to-be-evaluated object scoring method and device, the method comprising: obtaining a request of a to-be-evaluated object, parsing the request of the to-be-evaluated object and determining a type; determining at least one level of evaluation indicators applicable to the to-be-evaluated object according to the type of the to-be-evaluated object and a preset object architecture; and calculating values of the evaluation indicators by using an evaluation model to obtain an evaluation score of the to-be-evaluated object, wherein the evaluation model comprises dimensions corresponding to the evaluation indicators of at least one level. The present scheme promotes the transition from extensive management to fine and lean management of the to-be-evaluated object by flexibly selecting and configuring quantitative indicators to build an evaluation model, and promotes the quality improvement and high-quality development of the to-be-evaluated object.

Description

Technical Field

[0001] This specification relates to the field of computer software, and in particular to scoring methods and apparatus for objects to be evaluated based on evaluation models. Background Technology

[0002] Current conventional enterprise management evaluation methods record the evaluation methods in documents, which lack a systematic and structured description of the various evaluation elements involved. The various evaluation elements cannot form an effective logical connection. This evaluation method is relatively crude and can only be understood by humans. It cannot be modeled in a way that computers can understand, nor can it be directly used for subsequent information-based evaluation work.

[0003] To address these issues, companies need to introduce relatively generalized evaluation models into their management and adopt more modern and digital methods to build and implement these models. Summary of the Invention

[0004] To address the problems in the prior art, this specification provides a method and apparatus for scoring an object to be evaluated based on an evaluation model. The method includes: parsing and determining the type of an object identifier to be evaluated based on a received evaluation request, wherein the evaluation request includes the object identifier to be evaluated and time period information corresponding to the object identifier; determining at least one level of evaluation indicators applicable to the object identifier to be evaluated based on the type of the object identifier to be evaluated and a preset object architecture associated with the object identifier to be evaluated; and calculating the values ​​of all evaluation indicators using the evaluation model to obtain the evaluation score of the object identifier to be evaluated in the time period, wherein the evaluation model includes dimensions corresponding to at least one level of evaluation indicators.

[0005] According to one aspect of the embodiments of this specification, determining evaluation indicators applicable to at least one level of the object to be evaluated based on the type of the object to be evaluated and a preset object architecture associated with the object to be evaluated includes: determining the evaluation indicators of the object to be evaluated based on the type of the object to be evaluated; determining the node identifiers in the object to be evaluated corresponding to each evaluation indicator based on the preset object architecture; granting communication permissions to the nodes associated with the node identifiers and obtaining the indicator data provided by each node identifier.

[0006] According to one aspect of the embodiments of this specification, the method further includes: calculating the value of the evaluation index using an evaluation model to obtain the evaluation score of the object identifier to be evaluated in the time period, including: calculating the value of the evaluation index corresponding to each node identifier based on the indicator data of each node identifier and the corresponding evaluation index; determining the value of the evaluation index corresponding to the object identifier to be evaluated based on the evaluation model applicable to the object identifier to be evaluated and the value of the evaluation index corresponding to each node identifier.

[0007] According to one aspect of the embodiments of this specification, the evaluation model is determined by: setting a first level, which is configured with multiple dimensions; setting a second level under each dimension, which is configured with multiple sub-dimensions; and configuring different weights for each dimension in the first level and the second level according to the type of the object identifier to be evaluated.

[0008] According to one aspect of the embodiments of this specification, determining the value of the evaluation indicator corresponding to the identifier of the object to be evaluated, based on the evaluation model applicable to the object to be evaluated and the value of the evaluation indicator corresponding to each node identifier, includes: calculating the value of a first evaluation indicator based on the value of the evaluation indicator corresponding to the node identifier belonging to the second level; calculating the value of a second evaluation indicator based on the value of the first evaluation indicator and the value of the evaluation indicator corresponding to the node identifier belonging to the first level, wherein the value of the second evaluation indicator is the evaluation score of the identifier of the object to be evaluated.

[0009] According to one aspect of the embodiments of this specification, calculating the value of the evaluation index using an evaluation model to obtain the evaluation score of all the objects to be evaluated during the time period further includes: selecting a corresponding evaluation method and calculating the total evaluation score of the objects to be evaluated.

[0010] This specification also provides an evaluation model-based scoring device for an object to be evaluated. The device includes: a request acquisition unit, configured to parse and determine the type of an object identifier to be evaluated based on a received evaluation request, wherein the evaluation request includes the object identifier to be evaluated and time period information corresponding to the object identifier; an indicator determination unit, configured to determine at least one level of evaluation indicators applicable to the object identifier to be evaluated based on the type of the object identifier to be evaluated and a preset object architecture associated with the object identifier; and a score determination unit, configured to calculate the values ​​of all evaluation indicators using the evaluation model to obtain the evaluation score of the object identifier to be evaluated in the time period, wherein the evaluation model includes dimensions corresponding to at least one level of evaluation indicators.

[0011] This specification also provides a computer device, which includes a memory, a processor, and a computer program stored in the memory and executable on the processor. When the processor executes the computer program, it implements the evaluation model-based scoring method for the evaluation object.

[0012] This specification also provides a computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program that, when executed by a processor, implements the evaluation model-based scoring method for the object to be evaluated.

[0013] This specification also provides a computer program product, which includes a computer program that, when run by the processor of a computer device, executes the instructions of the evaluation model-based scoring method for the evaluation object.

[0014] This solution uses flexible selection of quantitative indicators to construct an evaluation model, promoting the transformation of the evaluated entities from extensive management to refined and lean management, thereby improving their quality, efficiency, and high-quality development. Attached Figure Description

[0015] To more clearly illustrate the technical solutions in the embodiments or prior art of this specification, the drawings used in the description of the embodiments or prior art will be briefly introduced below. Obviously, the drawings described below are only some embodiments of this specification. For those skilled in the art, other drawings can be obtained based on these drawings without creative effort.

[0016] Figure 1 The diagram shown is a schematic representation of a scoring system for an object to be evaluated based on an evaluation model, according to an embodiment of this specification.

[0017] Figure 2 The diagram shown is a flowchart of a scoring method for an object to be evaluated based on an evaluation model, according to an embodiment of this specification.

[0018] Figure 3 The diagram shown is a flowchart of a method for determining evaluation indicators of an object to be evaluated according to an embodiment of this specification.

[0019] Figure 4 The diagram shown is a flowchart of a method for determining the evaluation score of an object to be evaluated according to an embodiment of this specification.

[0020] Figure 5 The diagram shown is a flowchart of a method for determining an evaluation model according to an embodiment of this specification.

[0021] Figure 6 The diagram shown is a flowchart of a method for calculating evaluation indicators according to an embodiment of this specification.

[0022] Figure 7 The diagram shown is a structural schematic of a scoring device for an object to be evaluated based on an evaluation model, according to an embodiment of this specification.

[0023] Figure 8a The diagram shown is a schematic diagram of a formula library according to an embodiment of this specification;

[0024] Figure 8b The diagram shown is a schematic representation of an embodiment of this specification using a single formula for multiple evaluation indicators.

[0025] Figure 9The diagram shown is a schematic diagram of a preset object architecture and evaluation index according to an embodiment of this specification;

[0026] Figure 10 The diagram shown is a structural schematic of a computer device according to an embodiment of this specification.

[0027] Explanation of symbols in the attached drawings:

[0028] 101. Terminal;

[0029] 102. Server;

[0030] 701. Request receiving unit;

[0031] 702. Indicator Determination Unit;

[0032] 703. Score Determination Unit;

[0033] 1002. Computer equipment;

[0034] 1004, Processor;

[0035] 1006. Memory;

[0036] 1008. Drive mechanism;

[0037] 1010. Input / Output Module;

[0038] 1012. Input devices;

[0039] 1014. Output devices;

[0040] 1016. Presentation device;

[0041] 1018. Graphical User Interface;

[0042] 1020. Network interface;

[0043] 1022. Communication link;

[0044] 1025. Communication bus. Detailed Implementation

[0045] To enable those skilled in the art to better understand the technical solutions in this specification, the technical solutions in the embodiments of this specification will be clearly and completely described below with reference to the accompanying drawings. Obviously, the described embodiments are only some embodiments of this specification, and not all embodiments. Based on the embodiments in this specification, all other embodiments obtained by those skilled in the art without creative effort are within the scope of protection of this specification.

[0046] It should be noted that the terms "first," "second," etc., in the specification, claims, and accompanying drawings are used to distinguish similar objects and are not necessarily used to describe a specific order or sequence. It should be understood that such data can be interchanged where appropriate so that the embodiments described herein can be implemented in orders other than those illustrated or described herein. Furthermore, the terms "comprising" and "having," and any variations thereof, are intended to cover a non-exclusive inclusion; for example, a process, method, apparatus, product, or device that comprises a series of steps or units is not necessarily limited to those steps or units explicitly listed, but may include other steps or units not explicitly listed or inherent to such processes, methods, products, or devices.

[0047] This specification provides the operational steps of the methods described in the embodiments or flowcharts, but based on conventional or non-inventive labor, more or fewer operational steps may be included. The order of steps listed in the embodiments is merely one possible execution order among many and does not represent the only possible execution order. In actual system or device products, the methods shown in the embodiments or drawings can be executed sequentially or in parallel.

[0048] It should be noted that the scoring method and apparatus for the evaluation object based on the evaluation model described in this specification can be used in the field of computer software, but this specification does not limit the application field of the scoring method and apparatus for the evaluation object based on the evaluation model.

[0049] The acquisition, transmission, storage, use, and processing of data in this application comply with relevant laws and regulations. It should be noted that certain software, components, models, and other existing industry solutions may be mentioned in the embodiments of this application. These should be considered exemplary, intended only to illustrate the feasibility of implementing the technical solution of this application, and do not imply that the applicant has already used or necessarily used such solutions.

[0050] Injecting evaluation models into enterprise management is like a health check for the enterprise. It aims to objectively evaluate the value contribution of each link in the industrial chain and its affiliated enterprises, truthfully reflect the current status and existing problems of each enterprise's operation and management, reveal its development advantages and shortcomings, help managers at all levels grasp the current status of enterprise operation and management, development trend changes and its position in the industry, stimulate enterprise vitality and creativity, promote the transformation of enterprises from extensive management to refined management and lean management, and thus achieve sustainable development of enterprises.

[0051] like Figure 1The diagram illustrates a rating system for an object to be evaluated based on an evaluation model, according to an embodiment of the present invention. The system may include a terminal 101 and a server 102. The terminal 101 and server 102 communicate via a network, which may include a Local Area Network (LAN), a Wide Area Network (WAN), the Internet, or a combination thereof, and is connected to a website, user equipment (e.g., a computing device), and a backend system. Staff can send a request for an object to be evaluated to the server 102 via the terminal 101. Upon receiving the request, the server 102 parses the request and determines its type. Based on the type of the object to be evaluated and a preset object architecture, it determines at least one level of evaluation indicators applicable to the object. The server then calculates the values ​​of the evaluation indicators using the evaluation model to obtain the evaluation score of the object and sends the evaluation score to the terminal 101.

[0052] In the embodiments of this specification, the server 102 may be an independent physical server, a server cluster or distributed system composed of multiple physical servers, or a cloud server that provides basic cloud computing services such as cloud services, cloud databases, cloud computing, cloud functions, cloud storage, network services, cloud communication, middleware services, domain name services, security services, content delivery networks (CDN), and big data and artificial intelligence platforms.

[0053] In an optional embodiment, terminal 101 may be an electronic device, including but not limited to self-service terminal equipment, desktop computers, tablet computers, laptops, smart wearable devices, etc. Optionally, the operating system running on the electronic device may include, but is not limited to, Android, iOS, Linux, Windows, etc. Of course, terminal 101 is not limited to the aforementioned physical electronic devices; it may also be software running on the aforementioned electronic devices.

[0054] In addition, it should be noted that, Figure 1 The example shown is merely one application environment provided by this disclosure. In practical applications, it may include multiple terminals 101, and this specification does not impose any restrictions.

[0055] Figure 2 The diagram shown is a flowchart of a scoring method for an object to be evaluated based on an evaluation model, according to an embodiment of this specification, specifically including steps 201 to 203:

[0056] Step 201: Based on the received evaluation request, parse and determine the type of the object identifier to be evaluated. The evaluation request includes the object identifier to be evaluated and the time period information corresponding to the object identifier to be evaluated.

[0057] In this specification, the object to be evaluated is the organization, unit, or enterprise that needs to be scored. This specification uses an enterprise as an example and determines the type of object to be evaluated based on the different types of enterprises to which the object to be evaluated belongs. The evaluation request includes the object's identifier and the time period information carried by the identifier. The time period information indicates the request to calculate the evaluation score corresponding to the object's identifier during that time period. Furthermore, the evaluation request may also include: the enterprise to which the object to be evaluated belongs, the data type, the data source, the data name, the data period, and the data value.

[0058] Based on the above request data, when the object to be evaluated is identified as a corresponding enterprise, the type of enterprise to be evaluated can be determined, such as manufacturing, service, technology, foreign trade, startup, and mature enterprise.

[0059] Step 202: Based on the type of the object identifier to be evaluated and the preset object architecture associated with the object identifier to be evaluated, determine at least one level of evaluation indicators applicable to the object identifier to be evaluated.

[0060] This manual configures different evaluation indicators for different types of object identifiers to be evaluated. When the object identifier corresponds to a company, this step requires differentiated design of evaluation indicators for various types of companies. In this manual, the preset object architecture is used to represent the evaluation framework of the object identifier, which typically includes multiple levels. Evaluation indicators are usually attached to the evaluation framework of the preset object architecture, such as... Figure 9 As shown.

[0061] In this specification, evaluation metrics are the concretization of evaluation dimensions, used to measure the performance or level of the object being evaluated in a particular dimension. Evaluation metrics are typically quantifiable or describable, providing clear information about the performance of the object being evaluated in a specific dimension. Evaluation metrics transform the performance of the object being evaluated in a particular dimension into comparable data or information through quantified data items (including calculated data items, calculation formulas, and units of measurement).

[0062] In this specification, the type of the object being evaluated directly affects the setting of evaluation indicators. Different types of objects require the selection of appropriate evaluation indicators. Taking enterprises as an example: manufacturing companies focus on indicators such as production efficiency, cost control, product quality, and market share; service companies emphasize indicators such as customer satisfaction, service quality, service response speed, and employee satisfaction; technology companies value indicators such as R&D investment ratio, number of patents, speed of new product launches, and technological leadership; startups focus on indicators such as growth potential, financing ability, team strength, and market acceptance; and mature companies emphasize indicators such as stable profitability, cash flow management, brand value, and diversification strategy.

[0063] Step 203: Calculate the values ​​of all evaluation indicators using the evaluation model to obtain the evaluation score of the object to be evaluated during the time period, wherein the evaluation model includes dimensions of evaluation indicators corresponding to at least one level.

[0064] In this specification, after determining all evaluation indicators for the object to be evaluated, the values ​​corresponding to the evaluation indicators are obtained, and the evaluation model is further used to calculate the values ​​of the evaluation indicators at the next higher level, ultimately obtaining the evaluation score of the object to be evaluated.

[0065] In this step, an evaluation indicator library can be created for each level of the preset object architecture. Simultaneously, based on the characteristics of the enterprise's products and services, the enterprise type can be further subdivided, and evaluation indicators can be selected accordingly.

[0066] This solution uses flexible selection of quantitative indicators to construct an evaluation model, promoting the transformation of the evaluated entities from extensive management to refined and lean management, thereby improving their quality, efficiency, and high-quality development.

[0067] Figure 3 The diagram shown is a flowchart of a method for determining evaluation indicators of an object to be evaluated according to an embodiment of this specification, specifically including steps 301 to 303:

[0068] Step 301: Determine the evaluation index of the object to be evaluated based on the type of the object identifier to be evaluated.

[0069] In the embodiments of this specification, the preset object architecture, evaluation dimensions, and evaluation indicators can be independently configured according to the evaluation or management needs of different types of objects to be evaluated, adapting to diverse evaluation tasks. For example... Figure 9 In this context, evaluation indicators can include: per capita profit, return on invested capital, sales profit margin; innovation indicators, unit discovery and development cost indicators, oil and gas equivalent indicators; oil and gas reserve replacement rate, three-year average return on invested capital, environmental assessment, and other indicators.

[0070] Different types of objects to be evaluated have different evaluation identifiers, and this application does not limit the type of evaluation identifier.

[0071] Step 302: Based on the preset object architecture, determine the node identifier in the identifier of the object to be evaluated corresponding to each evaluation indicator.

[0072] As described above, the pre-defined object architecture is used to represent the evaluation framework of the object to be evaluated. It typically includes multiple levels, and evaluation indicators are usually attached to the evaluation framework within the pre-defined object architecture. Each evaluation indicator corresponds to a position within the object architecture, which can be represented by a hierarchy. The object architecture has multiple levels, and each level has at least one node. In this specification, the object architecture is proposed in advance upon request. For example, as... Figure 9 As shown, Company A's object architecture includes three first-level components: profitability, competitiveness, and sustainability. The profitability level further comprises three second-level components: profit per employee, return on capital, and profit on sales revenue. These three second-level components also correspond to three evaluation indicators: profit per employee, return on invested capital, and sales profit margin. It is worth noting that the three second-level components correspond to node identifiers within the three companies. These node identifiers can be understood as specific business departments, business positions, or departmental staff.

[0073] Step 303: Grant communication permissions to the nodes associated with the node identifier and obtain the indicator data provided by each node identifier.

[0074] In this step, after determining the node identifier corresponding to the evaluation indicator, communication permissions are granted to the node identifier associated with that node identifier. Only then can the corresponding node send specific data for the current period to the system, rather than all nodes participating in data statistics. This ensures data communication security. On the other hand, when the request from the object to be evaluated changes, the preset object architecture and evaluation indicators of the object identifier also change accordingly. Consequently, the nodes corresponding to the evaluation indicators that need to be statistically analyzed will also change. This application does not require full data analysis of all nodes; instead, it dynamically grants permissions to the corresponding nodes based on the request, dynamically summarizes the data from each node, and thus calculates the value of the corresponding evaluation indicator.

[0075] Figure 4 The diagram shown is a flowchart of a method for determining the evaluation score of an object identifier according to an embodiment of this specification, specifically including steps 401 to 402:

[0076] Step 401: Based on the indicator data of each node identifier and the evaluation indicator, calculate the value of the evaluation indicator corresponding to each node identifier. Specifically, in this step, based on the indicator data and evaluation indicator of each node, select the corresponding calculation formula and then use the calculation formula to calculate the specific value of the evaluation indicator.

[0077] The calculation formulas in this step define how to combine different data items to derive a meaningful evaluation score or indicator. This manual categorizes the calculation formulas into seven functions, including summation, difference, quotient, difference-to-quotient, compound annual growth rate, difference in compound annual growth rate, and long-term average rate. Further mathematical extensions are possible based on these formulas, such as... Figure 8a As shown.

[0078] In this manual, multiple indicators can correspond to a single formula. Furthermore, modifying an indicator does not require changing the calculation formula; only the composition of the calculation data items needs to be changed. For example, the per capita profit indicator has per capita profit and average annual number of employees as calculation data items. The selected calculation formula is Y = SUM(A) / SUM(B), which is suitable for finding the quotient of the data items in the calculation formula. Substituting the per capita profit data item into A of the calculation formula and the average annual number of employees into B of the calculation formula, the specific value of the per capita profit indicator is obtained. See [link to manual]. Figure 8b .

[0079] Step 402: Determine the value of the evaluation index corresponding to the object to be evaluated in the time period based on the evaluation model applicable to the object to be evaluated and the value of the evaluation index corresponding to each node identifier.

[0080] In this step, the object identifier to be evaluated belongs to a large whole. Calculating the evaluation index of the large whole needs to be broken down into multiple steps: First, calculate the value of the evaluation index corresponding to the smallest dimension (i.e., the node of the smallest level) that constitutes the object identifier to be evaluated; second, calculate the value of the evaluation index of each dimension of the next higher level based on the value of the evaluation index of the smallest unit... Finally, combine the values ​​of the evaluation index corresponding to the multiple dimensions of the first level to obtain the value of the evaluation index of the object identifier to be evaluated in the stated time period.

[0081] Figure 5 The diagram shown is a flowchart of a method for determining an evaluation model according to an embodiment of this specification, specifically including steps 501 to 502:

[0082] Step 501: Set the first level, which is configured with multiple dimensions.

[0083] In this step, an evaluation hierarchy is established based on a pre-defined object architecture. Evaluation indicators are set under each hierarchy, and each indicator is associated with data items. This hierarchical logical relationship constructs the evaluation model, driving the specific evaluation work. Here, the hierarchy represents the vertical depth of the evaluation model, with the first level being the highest level. For example, the development capability evaluation box includes three evaluation levels. The first level includes: profitability, competitiveness, and sustainability. These three first levels are largely consistent in level and importance, belonging to three different dimensions of the first level, representing the performance of the evaluated object in economic income, competitiveness, and long-term development capability, respectively. Furthermore, each first level has multiple sub-levels.

[0084] Step 502: Set a second level under each dimension, and the second level is configured with multiple sub-dimensions.

[0085] In this step, the second level has a hierarchical relationship with the first level. Based on the first level of the enterprise development capability evaluation framework in step 501, the second level in this step includes: per capita profit, capital profit, and sales revenue profit corresponding to the profitability of the first level; technological and management innovation, products, and markets corresponding to the competitiveness of the first level; and resources, economy, and environment corresponding to the sustainability of the first level.

[0086] In the embodiments of this specification, based on the specific form of the preset object architecture, the lower levels of the second level can be further determined, such as the third level, the fourth level, etc. Correspondingly, the evaluation indicators of the third and fourth levels can be determined according to the method described above.

[0087] In this manual, after determining the first and second levels of the evaluation model, various types of data are input into the model. Before inputting data into the evaluation model, the collected data items can be stored in multiple dimensions. Specifically, relational or non-relational databases can be used to store the data items, and the dimensions of the data items can be set, such as time dimension, type dimension, etc. This manual allows for the construction of an evaluation model based on the evaluation request, specifying the time conditions, data characteristics (multi-dimensional), and the preferred level of the data items, to perform intelligent optimization.

[0088] Step 503: Based on the type of the object to be evaluated, configure different weights for each dimension in the first and second levels.

[0089] For example, based on the company's strategic goals, determine the weight ratio of each dimension (profitability, competitiveness, sustainability) in the first level. For instance, if the company's core strategy is profitability, "profitability" can be given a weight of 40%, and "competitiveness" and "sustainability" can each be given a weight of 20%.

[0090] For example, the first-level dimension "Profitability" includes three second-level dimensions: "Profit per Employee," "Capital Profit," and "Sales Revenue Profit." The weight of "Profit per Employee" in the second-level dimension is 20%, "Capital Profit" is 30%, and "Sales Revenue Profit" is 50%. The first-level competitive capability dimension is further subdivided into "Technological and Management Innovation," "Product," and "Market." The second-level dimension "Product" accounts for 60% of the weight of the three second-level dimensions: "Technological and Management Innovation," "Product," and "Market."

[0091] The indicator "Unit Discovery and Development Cost" has two sub-indicators: "Unit Discovery Cost" and "Unit Development Cost". The weight of Unit Discovery Cost is set at 70%, and the weight of Free Cash Flow is set at 30%.

[0092] This solution uses flexible selection of quantitative indicators to construct an evaluation model, promoting the transformation of the evaluated entities from extensive management to refined and lean management, thereby improving their quality, efficiency, and high-quality development.

[0093] Figure 6 The diagram shown is a flowchart of a method for calculating evaluation indicators according to an embodiment of this specification, specifically including steps 601 to 602.

[0094] Step 601: Calculate the first evaluation indicator based on the value of the evaluation indicator corresponding to the node identifier belonging to the second level. In this step, the nodes in the second level include: the nodes of the current level corresponding to the dimension of the second level, and the nodes of the next lower level corresponding to the dimension of the second level. Therefore, the evaluation indicators corresponding to the node identifiers of the second level include: the evaluation indicators corresponding to the node identifiers of the current level corresponding to the dimension of the second level, and the evaluation indicators corresponding to the node identifiers of the next lower level corresponding to the dimension of the second level. For example, the nodes in the second level of the enterprise development capability evaluation framework include: the node identifier "product" of the current level, and the node identifiers "unit discovery cost" and "unit development cost" of the next lower level corresponding to "product".

[0095] Furthermore, after calculating the evaluation metrics for the lower-level nodes corresponding to the second-level dimensions, the evaluation metrics for the nodes at the same level corresponding to the second-level dimensions can be calculated by combining the values ​​of the evaluation metrics for the lower-level nodes. For example, after calculating the two evaluation metrics "unit discovery cost" and "unit development cost," the evaluation metric for "product" can be calculated based on these two evaluation metrics and their weights. In this specification, the values ​​of the evaluation metrics corresponding to all nodes in the second level are referred to as the first evaluation metrics. In subsequent steps, the first evaluation metrics can be used to calculate the total evaluation metrics corresponding to the nodes in the first level.

[0096] For example, the second-level dimension "Capital Return" includes two indicators: "Return on Invested Capital" and "Free Cash Flow," with weights of 70% and 30%, respectively. Therefore, the score for the first evaluation indicator in the second level = Return on Invested Capital score × 0.7 + Free Cash Flow score × 0.3.

[0097] Step 602: Calculate the value of the second evaluation indicator based on the value of the first evaluation indicator and the value of the evaluation indicator corresponding to the node identifier belonging to the first level. The value of the second evaluation indicator is the evaluation score of the object identifier to be evaluated.

[0098] Corresponding to step 601, the first level has multiple dimensions, and each dimension corresponds to an evaluation index calculated from multiple node identifiers in the second level.

[0099] Taking the first-level dimension "profitability" as an example, the second evaluation index of the first-level "profitability" dimension is the sum of the evaluation index scores of the multiple sub-dimensions of the first level corresponding to this dimension. For example, it is calculated as: Average Profitability Score × 0.2 + Capital Profitability Score × 0.3 + Sales Revenue Profitability Score × 0.5. The average profitability score, capital profitability score, and sales revenue profitability score in the formula are the values ​​of the evaluation indexes corresponding to the first level calculated in step 601.

[0100] In the embodiments of this specification, after calculating the second evaluation index, the total evaluation score of the object to be evaluated is calculated based on the second evaluation index of all dimensions of the first level. The final total score = the sum of the scores of each dimension multiplied by the dimension weights. For example, the total score of an enterprise = profitability dimension score × 0.4 + competitiveness dimension score × 0.4 + sustainability dimension score × 0.3.

[0101] This manual utilizes the methods described above to establish a scientific and transparent multi-level weighted evaluation system, supporting the accurate quantitative assessment of corporate strategic goals.

[0102] In some embodiments of this specification, calculating the values ​​of the evaluation indicators using an evaluation model to obtain the evaluation score of the object to be evaluated further includes: selecting a corresponding evaluation method and calculating the total evaluation score of the object to be evaluated. In this specification, the evaluation method is used to convert the calculated evaluation indicators into measurable evaluation scores. Specifically, each indicator to be evaluated is compared with its respective evaluation parameters (standard values) and converted into a measurable evaluation score through a quantification function. Currently, evaluation methods used include the efficacy coefficient method, the target value method, and the grading method for quantification conversion. Furthermore, based on the relationship between the changes in evaluation indicator values ​​and evaluation expectations, evaluation indicators can be categorized into positive indicators (the larger the indicator value, the better), negative indicators (the smaller the indicator value, the better), and moderate value indicators (the closer the indicator value is to a certain specified value, the better) for quantification conversion.

[0103] Figure 7 The diagram shown is a structural schematic of a scoring device for an evaluation object based on an evaluation model, according to an embodiment of this specification. The basic structure of the scoring device for an evaluation object based on an evaluation model is illustrated in this diagram. The functional units and modules can be implemented in software, or they can be implemented using general-purpose chips or specific chips to achieve the evaluation model-based scoring of the evaluation object. Specifically, the device includes:

[0104] The request receiving unit 701 is used to parse and determine the type of the object identifier to be evaluated based on the received evaluation request. The evaluation request includes the object identifier to be evaluated and the time period information corresponding to the object identifier to be evaluated.

[0105] The indicator determination unit 702 is used to determine at least one level of evaluation indicators applicable to the object to be evaluated based on the type of the object identifier to be evaluated and the preset object architecture associated with the object identifier to be evaluated.

[0106] The scoring determination unit 703 is used to calculate the values ​​of all evaluation indicators using the evaluation model to obtain the evaluation score of the object to be evaluated in the time period, wherein the evaluation model includes dimensions of evaluation indicators corresponding to at least one level.

[0107] Figure 8a The diagram shown is a schematic of a formula library according to an embodiment of this specification. The diagram illustrates 19 formula templates, including summation, difference, quotient, difference-to-quotient, compound growth rate, difference of compound growth rate, and long-term average rate, and mathematical formulas can be extended based on these templates.

[0108] Based on the computational requirements, the R language function library is selected for construction. Figure 8b The formula library shown allows for the independent calling of one or more formulas. Adding, deleting, or modifying functions in the library does not affect other programs. Furthermore, the functions can be complex or flexible, making it the core of formula calculation and meeting the demand for high flexibility in formula calculation.

[0109] Figure 8b The diagram shown is a schematic diagram of an embodiment of this specification where multiple evaluation indicators are used with a single formula.

[0110] In the diagram, the calculation formula for indicators such as profit per capita, technological investment intensity, and sales profit margin is Y = SUM(A) / SUM(B). This formula is suitable for quotienting the data items in the calculation formula. Substitute the data items of profit per capita, total technological investment, and total profit into A in the calculation formula, and substitute the data items of average annual number of employees and operating revenue into B in the calculation formula to obtain the specific values ​​of indicators such as profit per capita, technological investment intensity, and sales profit margin. Multiple evaluation indicators can correspond to one formula, and the calculation formula does not need to be changed when the indicators are modified; only the composition of the calculation data items needs to be changed.

[0111] Figure 9 The diagram illustrates a pre-defined object architecture and evaluation indicators according to an embodiment of this specification. The first level of the object architecture can establish three dimensions: profitability, competitiveness, and sustainability. Each dimension can have several sub-dimensions. Under the first-level dimension of profitability, there are three second-level sub-dimensions: profit per employee, capital profit, and sales profit. Under the first-level dimension of competitiveness, there are second-level sub-dimensions: management and innovation, product, and market. Under the first-level dimension of sustainability, there are second-level sub-dimensions: resources, economy, and environment. Various indicators are designed differently under each sub-dimension; for example, the profit per employee sub-dimension includes a profit per employee indicator, and the economy sub-dimension includes a three-year average return on investment indicator, etc. This establishes an effective logical connection between the object architecture, evaluation dimensions, and evaluation indicators across different enterprise types.

[0112] In the evaluation framework for enterprise development capabilities, the first level can establish three dimensions: profitability, competitiveness, and sustainability, with several sub-dimensions under each dimension. The second level, the profitability dimension, establishes three sub-dimensions: profit per employee, return on capital, and sales profit. The second level, the competitiveness dimension, establishes three sub-dimensions: management and innovation, product, and market. The second level, the sustainability dimension, establishes three sub-dimensions: resources, economy, and environment. Each sub-dimension has differentiated indicators; for example, the profit per employee sub-dimension includes an average profit per employee indicator, and the economy sub-dimension includes an average three-year return on investment indicator, etc. The evaluation framework, dimensions, and indicators are logically linked across different enterprise types.

[0113] It should be noted that the computer program product described in this specification is a software product that mainly implements the methods described in this specification through a computer program.

[0114] like Figure 10 The diagram illustrates a computer device according to an embodiment of this specification. The evaluation model-based scoring method for the evaluated object described in this application can be applied to the computer device. The computer device 1002 may include one or more processors 1004, such as one or more central processing units (CPUs), each of which can implement one or more hardware threads. The computer device 1002 may also include any memory 1006 for storing information of any kind, such as code, settings, data, etc. Without limitation, for example, the memory 1006 may include any type of RAM, any type of ROM, flash memory, hard disk, optical disk, etc. More generally, any memory can use any technology to store information. Further, any memory can provide volatile or non-volatile retention of information. Further, any memory can represent a fixed or removable component of the computer device 1002. In one case, when the processor 1004 executes associated instructions stored in any memory or combination of memories, the computer device 1002 can perform any operation of the associated instructions. The computer device 1002 also includes one or more drive mechanisms 1008 for interacting with any memory, such as a hard disk drive mechanism, an optical disk drive mechanism, etc.

[0115] Computer device 1002 may further include an input / output module 1010 (I / O) for receiving various inputs (via input device 1012) and providing various outputs (via output device 1014). A specific output mechanism may include a presentation device 1016 and an associated graphical user interface (GUI) 1018. In other embodiments, the input / output module 1010 (I / O), input device 1012, and output device 1014 may be omitted, and the device may function solely as a computer device within a network. Computer device 1002 may also include one or more network interfaces 1020 for exchanging data with other devices via one or more communication links 1022. One or more communication buses 1025 couple the components described above together.

[0116] The communication link 1022 can be implemented in any way, such as via a local area network, a wide area network (e.g., the Internet), a point-to-point connection, or any combination thereof. The communication link 1022 may include any combination of hardwired links, wireless links, routers, gateway functions, name servers, etc., governed by any protocol or combination of protocols.

[0117] Corresponding to Figures 2 to 6 In addition to the methods described above, embodiments of this specification also provide a computer-readable storage medium storing a computer program that, when executed by a processor, performs the steps of the methods described above.

[0118] This specification also provides computer-readable instructions, wherein when a processor executes the instructions, the program therein causes the processor to perform the following... Figures 2 to 6 The method shown.

[0119] It should be understood that in the various embodiments of this specification, the sequence number of each process does not imply the order of execution. The execution order of each process should be determined by its function and internal logic, and should not constitute any limitation on the implementation process of the embodiments of this specification.

[0120] It should also be understood that, in the embodiments of this specification, the term "and / or" is merely a description of the relationship between related objects, indicating that three relationships can exist. For example, A and / or B can represent: A existing alone, A and B existing simultaneously, and B existing alone. Additionally, the character " / " in this specification generally indicates that the preceding and following related objects have an "or" relationship.

[0121] Those skilled in the art will recognize that the units and algorithm steps of the various examples described in conjunction with the embodiments disclosed in this specification can be implemented in electronic hardware, computer software, or a combination of both. To clearly illustrate the interchangeability of hardware and software, the components and steps of each example have been generally described in terms of functionality in the foregoing description. Whether these functions are implemented in hardware or software depends on the specific application and design constraints of the technical solution. Those skilled in the art can use different methods to implement the described functions for each specific application, but such implementation should not be considered beyond the scope of this specification.

[0122] Those skilled in the art will clearly understand that, for the sake of convenience and brevity, the specific working processes of the systems, devices, and units described above can be referred to the corresponding processes in the foregoing method embodiments, and will not be repeated here.

[0123] In the several embodiments provided in this specification, it should be understood that the disclosed systems, apparatuses, and methods can be implemented in other ways. For example, the apparatus embodiments described above are merely illustrative; for instance, the division of units is only a logical functional division, and in actual implementation, there may be other division methods. For example, multiple units or components may be combined or integrated into another system, or some features may be ignored or not executed. Furthermore, the couplings or direct couplings or communication connections shown or discussed may be indirect couplings or communication connections through some interfaces, devices, or units, or they may be electrical, mechanical, or other forms of connection.

[0124] The units described as separate components may or may not be physically separate. The components shown as units may or may not be physical units; that is, they may be located in one place or distributed across multiple network units. Some or all of the units can be selected to achieve the purpose of the embodiments described in this specification, depending on actual needs.

[0125] Furthermore, the functional units in the various embodiments of this specification can be integrated into one processing unit, or each unit can exist physically separately, or two or more units can be integrated into one unit. The integrated unit can be implemented in hardware or as a software functional unit.

[0126] If the integrated unit is implemented as a software functional unit and sold or used as an independent product, it can be stored in a computer-readable storage medium. Based on this understanding, the technical solution of this specification, in essence, or the part that contributes to the prior art, or all or part of the technical solution, can be embodied in the form of a software product. This computer software product is stored in a storage medium and includes several instructions to cause a computer device (which may be a personal computer, server, or network device, etc.) to execute all or part of the steps of the methods described in the various embodiments of this specification. The aforementioned storage medium includes various media capable of storing program code, such as USB flash drives, portable hard drives, read-only memory (ROM), random access memory (RAM), magnetic disks, or optical disks.

[0127] This specification uses specific embodiments to illustrate the principles and implementation methods of this specification. The descriptions of the above embodiments are only for the purpose of helping to understand the methods and core ideas of this specification. At the same time, for those skilled in the art, there will be changes in the specific implementation methods and application scope based on the ideas of this specification. Therefore, the content of this specification should not be construed as a limitation of this specification.

Claims

1. A scoring method for an object to be evaluated based on an evaluation model, characterized in that, The method includes: Based on the received evaluation request, the type of the object identifier to be evaluated is parsed and determined. The evaluation request includes the object identifier to be evaluated and the time period information corresponding to the object identifier to be evaluated. Based on the type of the object identifier to be evaluated and the preset object architecture associated with the object identifier to be evaluated, determine at least one level of evaluation indicators applicable to the object identifier to be evaluated. The evaluation model is used to calculate the values ​​of all evaluation indicators to obtain the evaluation score of the object to be evaluated in the time period. The evaluation model includes dimensions of evaluation indicators corresponding to at least one level.

2. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, Based on the type of the object identifier to be evaluated and the preset object architecture associated with the object identifier, the evaluation indicators applicable to at least one level of the object identifier to be evaluated are determined, including: Based on the type of the object identifier to be evaluated, determine the evaluation index of the object identifier to be evaluated; Based on the preset object architecture, determine the node identifier in the identifier of the object to be evaluated corresponding to each evaluation indicator; Grant communication permissions to the nodes associated with the node identifier and obtain the indicator data provided by each node identifier.

3. The method according to claim 2, characterized in that, The evaluation score of the object to be evaluated during the specified time period is obtained by calculating the values ​​of all evaluation indicators using the evaluation model. Based on the indicator data and corresponding evaluation indicators of each node identifier, calculate the value of the evaluation indicator corresponding to each node identifier. Based on the evaluation model applicable to the identifier of the object to be evaluated and the value of the evaluation index corresponding to each node identifier, the value of the evaluation index corresponding to the identifier of the object to be evaluated in the time period is determined.

4. The method according to claim 3, characterized in that, The evaluation model is determined in the following way: Set up a first level, which has multiple dimensions; A second level is set up under each dimension, and the second level is configured with multiple sub-dimensions; Based on the type of the object being evaluated, different weights are assigned to each dimension in the first and second levels.

5. The method according to claim 3, characterized in that, Based on the evaluation model applicable to the identifier of the object to be evaluated and the value of the evaluation index corresponding to each node identifier, the value of the evaluation index corresponding to the identifier of the object to be evaluated in the time period is determined as follows: Calculate the value of the first evaluation indicator based on the value of the evaluation indicator corresponding to the node identifier belonging to the second level; Based on the value of the first evaluation indicator and the value of the evaluation indicator corresponding to the node identifier belonging to the first level, the value of the second evaluation indicator is calculated, and the value of the second evaluation indicator is the evaluation score of the object identifier to be evaluated.

6. The method according to claim 1, characterized in that, The evaluation score of the object to be evaluated during the specified time period is further obtained by calculating the values ​​of all evaluation indicators using the evaluation model: Select the corresponding evaluation method and calculate the total evaluation score of the object to be evaluated.

7. A scoring device for an object to be evaluated based on an evaluation model, characterized in that, The device includes: The request acquisition unit is used to parse and determine the type of the object identifier to be evaluated based on the received evaluation request. The evaluation request includes the object identifier to be evaluated and the time period information corresponding to the object identifier to be evaluated. The indicator determination unit is used to determine at least one level of evaluation indicators applicable to the object to be evaluated based on the type of the object identifier to be evaluated and the preset object architecture associated with the object identifier to be evaluated. The scoring unit is used to calculate the values ​​of all evaluation indicators using the evaluation model to obtain the evaluation score of the object to be evaluated in the time period, wherein the evaluation model includes dimensions of evaluation indicators corresponding to at least one level.

8. A computer device, comprising a memory, a processor, and a computer program stored in the memory and executable on the processor, characterized in that, When the processor executes the computer program, it implements the method according to any one of claims 1 to 6.

9. A computer-readable storage medium, characterized in that, The computer-readable storage medium stores a computer program that, when executed by a processor, implements the method according to any one of claims 1 to 6.

10. A computer program product, comprising a computer program, characterized in that, When the computer program is run by the processor, it executes the instructions of the method according to any one of claims 1-6.

Images